Shevuot

Whereas we learnt [this distinction, only] in the case of the Temple!1 — They are not the same:2 the longer route here3 is as the shorter route there; and the longer route there is as the shorter route here. R. Huna son of R. Nathan raised an objection: Did Abaye then say that he had no alternative;4 from which we deduce that we are discussing the time not near her period;5 surely, it was Abaye who said that he is liable to bring two;6 from which we deduced that it refers to the time near her period!7 — Abaye's statement8 was made elsewhere. R. Jonathan b. Jose b. Lekunia enquired of R. Simeon b. Jose b. Lekunia: Where is the prohibition in the Torah against intercourse with a menstruous woman? — He took a clod, and threw it at him. Prohibition against intercourse with a menstruant! And into a woman who is impure by her uncleanness thou shalt not approach!9 — Well then, [I meant to ask] where do we find the warning that he who cohabits with a clean woman, and she says to him, ‘I have become unclean’; he should not withdraw immediately? — Hezekiah said, Scripture says: [And if any man lie with her (a menstruous woman)] her impurity shall be with him10 — even at the time of her impurity she shall be ‘with him’11 Hence, we have a positive precept; whence do we derive a negative precept? — R. Papa said, Scripture says: Thou shalt not approach [unto a woman who is impure];12 thou shalt not approach means also, thou shalt not withdraw; for it is written: Who say, Approach to thyself, come not near me, for I am holier than thou.13 Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness;14 R. Josiah said: From this we deduce a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives near their periods. And how long before? Rabbah said: One ‘onah. 15 R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: He who does not separate from his wife near her period, then even if he has sons like the sons of Aaron, they will die, even as it is written: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness,’. . .16 [this is the law . . .] of her that is sick with her impurity;17 and next to it: [And the Lord spoke unto Moses] after the death [of the two sons of Aaron].18 R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: He who separates from his wife near her period will have male children, even as it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean;19 and next to it: If a woman conceive and bear a male child.20 R. Joshua b. Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, for it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between . . . the unclean and the clean]; and that ye may teach.21 R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: He who recites the Habdalah over wine at the termination of the Sabbath will have male children, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common;22 and elsewhere it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean;23 and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child].24 R. Joshua b. Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between the holy and the common] . . . and that ye may teach.25 R. Benjamin b. Japhet said that R Eleazar said: He who sanctifies himself during cohabitation will have male children, even as it is said: Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy,26 and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child].27 R. ELIEZER SAID, [SCRIPTURE SAYS: IF ANY ONE TOUCH THE CARCASS OF AN UNCLEAN] CREEPING THING, AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM etc. What is the difference between their views?28 Hezekiah said: ‘Creeping thing and carcass’ is the difference between them; R. Eliezer holds, we require that he should know whether he had become unclean by [the carcass of] a creeping thing or of an animal; and R. Akiba holds, we do not require that he should know this; as long as he knows that he has actually become unclean, it is not necessary [that he should know] whether he has become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.29 And so said Ulla: ‘Creeping thing and carcass’ is the difference between them; for Ulla pointed out an incongruity between one statement of R. Eliezer's and another, and then explained it: Did R. Eliezer, then, say that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by a carcass? I question this, for R. Eliezer said: In any case, if he ate prohibited fat, he is liable, or if he ate nothar, he is liable;30 if he desecrated the Sabbath, he is liable, or if he desecrated the Day of Atonement, he is liable;31 if he cohabited with his wife when menstruous, he is liable, or if he cohabited with his sister, he is liable.32 Said R. Joshua to him, Scripture says: If his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be known to him;33 only when it is known to him wherein he hath sinned.34 [Ulla, however,] explains it thus: There, Scripture says: he hath sinned, then he shall bring [his offering] — as long as [he knows that] he has sinned [though he does not know the actual sin, he brings his offering]: but here, since it is already written: [If any one touch] any unclean thing,35 why do we require: or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing?36 Hence, we deduce that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.37 And R. Akiba?38 — Because become unclean; and he is liable for withdrawing even when passive, for Abaye holds that he who cohabits with membrum mortuum is also liable. (V. supra 18a.) Only if he cohabits not near the time of her period is he exempt if he withdraws when passive, with membrum mortuum, for he has no other alternative, and is not to be blamed for cohabiting then. differentiates between withdrawing with virile member and passive, as referring to cohabitation not near the time of her period when, in entering, he is completely innocent, and in withdrawing forthwith is liable to bring a sin offering (not two), because he could have withdrawn with member passive with less pleasure. Abaye's statement that he brings two offerings does not refer to our Mishnah, but to a case where he cohabits with a clean woman near the time of her period, and she tells him during cohabitation that she has become unclean. In this case he brings two offerings, one for entering, and one for withdrawing, even passive, for Abaye holds that in this case, there is no difference how he withdrew, since he is not entirely blameless, for he should have foreseen that she might become unclean during cohabitation. shalt not withdraw. during the day, he must separate from the beginning of the day; if during the night, from the beginning of the night. that is sick with her impurity’, his sons will die, even as the sons of Aaron died. weekday). In verse 9 the priests are commanded: Drink no wine . . . when ye go into the tent of meeting. The implication is: but ye may drink wine when ye make a distinction between the holy and the common, I.e., when you recite the Habdalah. Temple that he entered in an unclean state, and thus the question arises, what is the difference between them? whereas R. Akiba holds it matters not, as long as he knows he is unclean. the time limit for its consumption, and he ate one of them unwittingly, but he does not know which, R. Eliezer says he must bring a sin offering, because, whether he ate the heleb or nothar, he is liable for a sin offering in either case; but R. Joshua says he is exempt; and is liable only when, he knows definitely which he has eaten. be clean, but later it was ascertained that his wife was already unclean, and, moreover, a doubt arose as to whether it might not have been his sister with whom he cohabited. here he says, he brings a sin offering even if he does not know exactly what his sin was, and in our Mishnah he says, he does not bring his offering unless he knows exactly the source of his uncleanness, whether carcass of creeping thing or animal. his uncleanness. his uncleanness, as long as he knows he is unclean?